“We mustn’t build up a fortress against cloning and the offspring of clones,” said Arnaud Petit, a director at Copa-Cogeca, the largest European association of farmers and cooperatives.

– James Kanter, New York Times.

Ahh, speak for yourself Arnaud Petit. If anyone needs me, I’ll be in a remote location, building up a fortress against the clones.

Seriously, though, check out the article — it’s an interesting read on the history and possibility of eating cloned animals, plus an overview of the nature and strength of people’s ethical hangups with the practice.

Obviously the intersection of meat and science is important to me, but I have yet to fully formulate an opinion on the matter. Eating cloned animals seems a bit weird, I suppose, and definitely feels more likely to lead to some sort of zombie outbreak. But at the same time, I can’t pretend the way we currently raise animals for consumption is entirely natural.

And I’m never clear on the term “natural” anyway. First of all, how can something truly be artificial — if you trace any chemical back far enough, it has to come from some natural elements, right? Like we can be all, “oh, MSG, that’s not natural.” But where does MSG come from? What constitutes “natural flavors?”

Plus, I mean, humans figured out how to clone stuff. Humans are part of nature, right? Is this particular technology somehow innately different than the development of all the tools we use to benefit society already?

I have a lot of questions and no answers. If cloning ultimately means we’ll have more delicious beef for less money, I’m for it. If it means all meat will taste the same and/or infect our brains and turn us into bloodthirsty cow-people, I’m against it.